Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[Ravi]

If I recall correctly, Ravi was actually chiming in to support the human-dog hybrid argument. In fact, it's possible it even WAS Ravi. That may be why I originally put her idiotic butt on ignore.

Lying doesn't become you.

Does anything become Cecilie?

So you're on ignore too.

LOL! She only says that when she's wreery wreery mad!

You're dealing with a woman that thinks an unhappy relationship is a woman's lot in life and that male children should be raised to treat women like doormats.

 

[AllieBaba]

Anti-abortion supporters are only concerned with imposing their moral agenda. If they were actually concerned about the well being of these children you would see them adopting these unwanted children left and right to ensure they have the upbringing they deserve.

Quite true. I've yet to see this argument successfully refuted by anyone.

That's because it's not a valid argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anti-abortion supporters are only concerned with imposing their moral agenda. If they were actually concerned about the well being of these children you would see them adopting these unwanted children left and right to ensure they have the upbringing they deserve.

Quite true. I've yet to see this argument successfully refuted by anyone.

That's because it's not a valid argument.

And she's actually seen in refuted dozens of times that I know of. She just refuses to pay any attention to it, because she doesn't want to believe her worldview could possibly be as screwed-up as it is.

 

[Iridescence]

I tell my boys and the other young men in my family straight out that if they are too embarrassed or uncomfortable to discuss sex and the necessary precautions/conditions taking whatever measures that are necessary for their given moments then they are just too immature to be having sex period. I know more mature 12 and 13 year olds than 30 and 40 year olds in this way.

The agendas are forever going to be here and divide us, however, it is perhaps how we stay focused on dealing with the issues in which the said agendas provoke that determines our individual success. Generalizations tend to blur too many distinguished lines. Even as a pro-lifer I would not support abortion being made completely illegal.

 

[AllieBaba]

Abortion has never been "completely" illegal.

Women got abortions all the time. It required nothing but a family doctor, or a doctor willing to give a woman or girl a "D&C".

Everybody had D&Cs before abortions became *legal*.

And women have never been *forced* to have children that will result in their deaths. I just love that argument. It's as if it's a common thing for women to become impregnated with horrible killer fetuses, and without legal abortion those killer fetuses will kill their mothers, and probably everybody in the delivery room and within a 10 mile radius, too!

It's very, very seldom that women are diagnosed with a condition that will result in their death if they carry a baby. And for those few women who do get such a terrible diagnosis, there have ALWAYS been options other than carrying these terrible killer fetuses of lore.

 

[AllieBaba]

But just because there were more D & C's then doesn't mean there were more abortions then than now. The numbers don't and can't compare.

 

[Iridescence]

I have been well informed of a few old abortion practices. Not at all pleasant. No, abortion probably will never become completely illegal, however, it can come to be so strictly regulated and such that girls, young women that don't have good support groups or strong family foundations would likely reach out to shadier means of such. Abortion is not family planning nor should ever be considered a part of that movement. Perhaps that is a step in the wrong direction for this topic, but I have seen the two linked together before and I, personally, would not support that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have been well informed of a few old abortion practices. Not at all pleasant. No, abortion probably will never become completely illegal, however, it can come to be so strictly regulated and such that girls, young women that don't have good support groups or strong family foundations would likely reach out to shadier means of such. Abortion is not family planning nor should ever be considered a part of that movement. Perhaps that is a step in the wrong direction for this topic, but I have seen the two linked together before and I, personally, would not support that.

May I ask what makes you think young girls would continue their current levels of promiscuity if they didn't have "Oh, I can just la-di-da into Planned Parenthood and get an abortion without anyone being the wiser" as an option? Of those who WOULD continue this behavior, don't you think it is at all that at least some of them might be likely to make a choice that DOESN'T involve endangering their lives?

I'm not a fan of making blanket public policy based on protecting a handful of people from their own stupidity. And it just seems to me that whatever concern one might have for the few apocryphal girls who MIGHT get a botched illegal abortion is trumped by concern for the all-too-real millions of babies who ARE getting killed right now, for the terrible crime of existing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have been well informed of a few old abortion practices. Not at all pleasant. No, abortion probably will never become completely illegal, however, it can come to be so strictly regulated and such that girls, young women that don't have good support groups or strong family foundations would likely reach out to shadier means of such. Abortion is not family planning nor should ever be considered a part of that movement. Perhaps that is a step in the wrong direction for this topic, but I have seen the two linked together before and I, personally, would not support that.

Then you know a D & C can be an abortion, and is still a primary method of abortion. Dilation & curettage.

 

[AllieBaba]

And you would also know the methods are still nasty. Being legal didn't change the procedures.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you would also know the methods are still nasty. Being legal didn't change the procedures.

Yeah, and the newer ones are even uglier. Just not a pretty activity all the way around.

 

[RDD_1210]

Anti-abortion supporters are only concerned with imposing their moral agenda. If they were actually concerned about the well being of these children you would see them adopting these unwanted children left and right to ensure they have the upbringing they deserve.

Gosh, that's original. We've sure as shit never heard that particular idiocy before.

So I'm sure you have a well thought out response.....

 

[JBeukema]

And what about those women who did chose to have protected sex and their birth control failed?

They chose to engage in sex using methods of birth control that are known to be less than 100% effective.

They accepted the odds. At what point, if ever, do we become responsible for the decisions we make?

 

[JBeukema]

is that really fair to limit the joy of becoming a mother to those who can afford it?

Is it fair to condemn a child to poverty and hunger?

 

[JBeukema]

I didnt read this thread in its entirety. But I certainly hope someone from both sides pointed out that not all abortions are done out of irresponsibility. For instance, a woman who has been raped and in turn inpregnated. Or a minor who may have been raped.

Furthermore, in a world quickly becoming overpopulated, is it really smart for someone who can not afford to do so, to have a child? So that child can grow up in poverty, to continue the spiral of probably making the same mistake (if not worse) than the parent(s) has made?

Oh, right. I forgot. The only people that believe in "pro-life", also believe Jesus is going to ride a velociraptor back down from heaven and save all the good god fearing christians. lmao.

Carry on.

Actually that has been pointed out many times. But do you realize that according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood, that only 7% of all abortions are primarily performed for the reasons of fetal abnormalities, health of the mother, rape or incest?

As for the idea that it is not smart for a woman who cannot afford to bring a child into this world, she already made her choice when she chose to have unprotected sex. Unless of course she was raped which happens in, according to Guttmacher, about 1% of the cases of abortion.

Welcome to USMB. Glad you're here.

Immie

A fair point. So, if this is about pro-life, shouldnt that also encompass the quality of said life? What is the percentage of people procreating into poverty? I think if you dug around, you would find that the poorer people are, the more children they tend to have. Education has a lot to do with this. Procreating into poverty only continues that spiral.

One of the reasons eugenicists founded Planned Parenthood to limit reproduction among the Lower Tenth

 

[JBeukema]

Ravi, just because you think that creationism and science are non-compatible doesn't mean there aren't those of us who love science and see it as God's map of life. I'm certainly not scared of science, though I think most of the head-in-the-sand anti-creationists are definitely afraid of faith...and of a lot of science, too, when it doesn't fit their concept of the way things ought to be.

If I recall correctly, Ravi was actually chiming in to support the human-dog hybrid argument. In fact, it's possible it even WAS Ravi. That may be why I originally put her idiotic butt on ignore.

It was originally raised by JD_2B, who either left or changed handles after that thread

 

[JBeukema]

Well the FACTS remain that there is no definitive scientific proof when life begins and "abortion" isn't even mentioned in the Bible. So all we have left are the self absorbed who believe in government control and forcing others to conform to THEIR morals.

.

Those who don't follow any faith argue that morals have nothing to do with religion. So trying to pigeon hole abortion as such is feeble.

One certainly does not have to be religious to view abortion as horrible. As much as pro-choicers want to classify the pro-life position as "all about religion", not one of them can EVER cite a time that I, for example, have ever based my arguments against abortion on religion.

Let us hop in the way-back machine....

Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/84072-pro-life-atheists.html

 

[JBeukema]

deja vu, anyone?

I can't imagine having an abortion for any reason, but I wouldn't deny anyone else autonomy over their body.

It's not their body. We're dealing with a distinct living human organism- another human being. Why is it that anti-lifers can never be honest and simply say they support homicide if the person being killed is below age x for reason y? Why can you people never be honest or argue fir what you want? Why is it all lies? Lies about the child being human, lies about the child being alive, lies about being raped..

If they end up answering to God that's between them and God, I'm not a part of that. I don't expect anyone else to show up and plead my case when I face God. I have no illusions about being allowed to enter heaven. I expect God will laugh at me and cast me aside because I have fucked up as much as I think is possible in this life, but again, that's between me and God, and no one else. And that's where I think this argument starts and ends.

Do you apply that argument to all homicides,rapes, and theft? Or do you only apply it where it suits your purposes, fits your agenda, or or seems to support in your limited view the position you want it to?

 

[JBeukema]

What are the unborn? Are you the undead?

Clever.

That was an unanswer.

I really don't care that much about semantics though you can't deny that resorting to sleazy buzzwords is a sign of desperation.

If "unborn" equals "fetus" then yes, I do so out of respect and compassion for the future human that the fetus might develop into and for humankind.

So many people think that bringing a child into the world is some kind of heroic act. It's not heroic, it's selfish. We have no lack of children in this world. But we do have an enormous lack of available resources for them. The earth is not getting any bigger. One day we could over populate ourselves into oblivion. Of course most people only think of the immediate future and their own desires to have a family. That's quite understandable. But selfish all the same.

Anyone else not surprised to hear the pro-abortionists turning to Malthusian rhetoric?

 

[misteroboto]

Anti-abortion supporters are only concerned with imposing their moral agenda. If they were actually concerned about the well being of these children you would see them adopting these unwanted children left and right to ensure they have the upbringing they deserve.

Gosh, that's original. We've sure as shit never heard that particular idiocy before.

well there is a bit of truth in what he posts

well except for the last part - i mean no matter how much they care about "babies" most wont do a thing simply because the harlots should be punished for having sex

oh an edit to add
most wont do it either because the harlot needs to be punished with raising a child or the kid wil be fine because someone else will take care of him or her ...